The court’s meticulous legal analysis in the quashing of the FIR for alleged non-return of Stridhan articles underscores the importance of understanding the intricacies of filing complaints within stipulated timeframes. The case delves into the concept of a continuing offense under Section 406 IPC, providing clarity on its implications for similar cases. This legal saga sets a significant precedent for interpreting and enforcing laws pertaining to matrimonial disputes and property rights.
Facts
- The complainant visited the police station on 24.08.2016 and submitted a letter with an additional list of her Stridhan articles.
- The list of Stridhan articles was again filed on 05.12.2016 with a request to recover the remaining articles.
- The husband deposited the Stridhan articles and a Pay Order of Rs. 5,98,000 on 16.06.2015.
- The FIR was quashed with regard to the husband alone and not the mother-in-law.
- Charges were framed under Section 406/34 IPC against the husband and mother-in-law on 22.02.2018.
- The wife filed a complaint seeking FIR registration against several individuals on 28.01.2013.
- The High Court held that the petition seeking quashing of FIR on behalf of the brother-in-law and sister-in-law was infructuous as no charge-sheet was filed against them.
- The High Court allowed the Writ Petition to the extent that the Writ Petitioners were not liable to be proceeded under Section 498A IPC due to the FIR being filed beyond the period of limitation of three years.
- Regarding the offence under Section 406 IPC, it was considered a continuing offence where every day of non-return of Stridhan articles constituted a fresh cause of action.
- The High Court determined that the offence under Section 406 IPC would not be liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation.
Also Read: Extension of Limitation Period in Legal Proceedings
Analysis
- The FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC is quashed as it was a pressure tactic by the complainant against multiple family members.
- All Stridhan articles and money were tendered to the wife, but she did not accept them, leading to their deposit with the police.
- The subsequent list of Stridhan articles submitted in 2016 was considered an afterthought and time-barred.
- The FIR was filed in 2015, which was well beyond three years after the separation and divorce petition.
- Section 406 IPC is a continuing offense, and every day of non-return of Stridhan gives a fresh cause of action.
- Petitioner No.1 attempted to return some Stridhan articles after the FIR was registered, strengthening the breach of trust claim.
- The High Court’s findings on the complaint/FIR under Section 498A IPC were upheld and deemed not needing interference.
- Allegations of non-return of Stridhan articles and Section 406 charges were deemed unsustainable in law against the mentioned individuals.
- Despite the decade-long pending divorce petition, no claims regarding Stridhan were made by the wife in those proceedings.
Also Read: Judicial Review & Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Matters
Case Title: KAMLESH KALRA Vs. SHILPIKA KALRA (2020 INSC 359)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000416-000416 / 2020
